Islamists have threatened a Christian Bishop in the Philippines… (H/T: UP Pompeii)

Philippine bishop reports receiving threat to convert to Islam

MANILA, Philippines (CNS) — A bishop in the southern Philippines reported receiving a letter threatening him with harm if he does not convert to Islam or pay “Islamic taxes.”

Such brazenness in a country where over 86% of the population is Christian, 9% is Muslim and the remaining 5% is divided among various groups such as: Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, animists and non-believers.

Even if those who sent these letters are no more than common criminals who use religion as a mere tool, the fact that they chose to represent themselves as Muslims is in itself significant. But Muslim brazenness does not stop there, unfortunately, this one is far from an isolated case! Remember the kidnapped and murdered Chaldean archbishop of Mosul, Mgr Faraj Rahho? What about the plight of Assyrian Christians in Iraq? What about the Sabian Mandaeans? Or the plight of Christians girls kidnapped in Nigeria by practitioners of the Religion of Peace? What about the treatment of Christian Copts in Egypt? Ot the threats against Western politicians like Geert Wilders or Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi? The list, gentle reader, goes on and on ad nauseum…

You may read the rest at: Freedom’s Cost

Gregory Scoblete takes a look at the underlying philosophies of Barack Obama and John McCain re. foreign policy. He concludes that McCain is a Universalist, whereas Obama is a particularist. In this post I will not try to analyze whether Gregory’s assessment of both men is correct; I’ll just deal with the two philosophies and, as the title implies, argue that Universalism has major weaknesses. As I see it, and as I will argue, Universalism is not a good basic philosophy for foreign policy. (more…)

At Slate, Ron Rosenbaum says that it’s not wrong to vote for Barack Obama because of his race.  This is an assertion I’m highly resistant to.  I believe my vote ought to be for the candidate who is most likely to do the things I believe are right for the nation - the candidate who earns my vote, in other words.

(more…)

The University of Washington honored one of its own when Phyllis Schlafly was presented with an honorary doctorate degree at today’s commencement.  Unfortunately, the ceremony was marred by students and faculty who turned their backs to her while the award was being presented.

(more…)

Sometimes I have a tendency to treat liberal as if it is a dirty word.  And sometimes I skip the part about explaining why that is, yet again, because that dirtiness is so obvious.  Since an apology is required for every misdeed in this day and age, well, I’m sorry for not spelling it out. 

Happily, Rachel Lucas is, using her own kind of straight talk, more than willing to take up my slack.  Enjoy! 

A well-known commentator said the following yesterday in response to Barack Obama’s speech. Without peeking, who do you think the author is and does the statement stand on its own to definitively define the difference between conservatives and liberals?

We all want opportunity for our kids. We all want a growing, expanding economy. The argument we have is how do you get there? The argument is very simply put, or the distinguishing aspects of the argument are: Liberals want to use government based on a contempt and lack of understanding and confidence that average Americans can overcome things in life. Conservatives like us believe that if you just trust people, the inherent goodness and decency of people will come to the forefront if you don’t tamper with their freedom

(more…)

Michelle Malkin has this story about a California court that has issued an outrageously harsh - and grotesquely incorrect - indictment against the practice of home-schooling.

From the LA Times:

“Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey

(more…)

Pete Abel says:

Last week, I crossed party lines to vote for Obama in the Missouri primary. Last night, I noted that I’m increasingly likely to do the same in November.

…

Challenge me. Rebuke me. Never let me off the hook. Make me work for what I am starting to believe.

Well, here goes, Pete. 

(more…)

The NY Times recently brought William Kristol onto its editorial pages and the uber-geniuses on the left fairly fell into heart palpitations at the news.

The hatred that liberals so often express against anything conservative is as visceral as it is vicious and the Kristol case is consistent with that kind of caustic commentary.

It’s certainly true that liberals regard the NY Times as their newspaper, just as they regard Fox News as the enemy. (more…)

I have to admit that I’m stuck on Benazir Bhutto.

Quoting Mark Steyn again, “She was beautiful and charming and sophisticated and smart and modern, and everything we in the west would like a Muslim leader to be”.

Writing about her murder, Andrew McCarthy had this to say about the nation she once led and, I think, would have directed again in 2008, had she not been blown up in the streets of Pakistan’s capital: (more…)

What does it mean to be a conservative or a liberal? There are as many answers to that question as people who apply these labels to themselves. It’s a difficult subject to treat fairly. But in honor of the PoliGazette’s kickoff I’ll try to define my own view of the ideological war that is American politics as concisely as I can. (more…)

Dave Johnson of Seeing The Forest proposes the following:

Here is a lesson we should all learn from watching how the conservatives operate: don’t do what they do. We should always, always look at things the way they are, and not be blinded by ideology and preconceptions.

Bush and the Republicans have created a terrible, terrible mess in the Middle East. But we have to look at where things are today, and figure out how to make the world better starting today.

We want to avoid bringing about another Darfur in Iraq, so we have to look at where things are today, what might work to make things better, and go from there. What if the surge is working?

Dave, meet under the bus.  Under the bus…meet Dave. 

Yesterday, I published this post about American Liberalism. I linked to the post at TMV, writing:

For an interesting discussion about American Liberalism, I suggest going here. The post is based on this article at the New York Times, by Patricia Cohen. She writes that there is a discussion going on in American Liberal circles, about the essence of Liberalism, what policies Liberals favor. Should Liberals talk about morality in society? What about foreign policy? Should the US adopt an interventionist foreign policy, or more of an isolationist one?

A little while later, three great bloggers, Pamela Leavey, Libby Spencer and Ron Chusid answered (some of) the questions raised in my post. I strongly recommend all those interested in this issue to read both posts in their entirety.

Some points.

Pamela writes:

I would on a whole disagree with Michael on his assertion that “liberals too pick and choose moral values they believe the government should defend, and criticize those who want the government to defend moral values they’re not happy with.” That choosing of which moral values to defend is clearly in my opinion something that both conservatives and liberals do. Particular values are relevant to each of us and to claim that one side of political ideology has a higher standard or one side of political ideology is better than the other is exactly what divides this nation today.

And so again, I will assert as I did above, that the notion that “family values” rest solely in the conservative party is hogwash. As an only parent and a liberal, I have raised a daughter on my own, who graduates from high school this month with a 3.9 grade average and high aspirations to make a difference in the world. I’ve taught her the very values that I live by and there is no standard that says children raised by two conservative parents have done a better job raising their children than I.

The standards by which we live our lives are what define us and our children, political ideology and “values” are an aside to that. No one holds a lock hold on values. When we stop debating whose values are better, like whose God is the “only” God, this country and the world will be a better place.

Imagine all the people… living for today… I am sorry I could not resist.

Pamela’s approach - lets stop fighting about whose morals are best, lets focus on whose policies are best / most effective - is one most people could, principly, embrace. That is, if only it were that simple. Sadly, it is not so.

This is not a debate about whose moral values are best in one’s private life. I know very moral progressives, I know very moral conservatives. I also know very immoral progressives and very immoral conservatives.

The question is, does one believe that society as a whole benefits from certain moral values? If so, doesn’t it make sense for the government to promote these values? And if so, what moral values exactly benefit society and how to promote them?

Also, it seems to me that a lot of political questions revolve around the question of ‘what’s right.’ More about that in my response to Libby’s post below.

Libby takes a radically different approach than Pamela:

Michael says it’s not that simple but I have to disagree. It really isn’t that complicated. I think he is confusing morals with religious values. The two are not necessarily inclusive and shouldn’t be conflated to make the point. Lying, cheating and stealing for instance are moral issues and not only do most of us forgo such behavior as a matter of conscience, it’s also a rule of law that no liberal or conservative would think of opposing. The morality is secondary to the public safety issues. These are behaviors that harm others…

Even an issue as emotionally fraught as abortion is not really fought on moral grounds. Although the religious right would have you believe they are battling to prevent the murder of unborn children, it’s not really about that fetus. Terminating a pregnancy does them no harm, but again, the choice to do so offends their religious values. They’re fighting to prevent a woman from making a private decision about a medical procedure and label the “wrong” choice immoral, because it is — according to their religious rules. We could look to Teri Schiavo and see the same dynamic at work.

Libby, however, forgets one thing. Firstly: most moral values ruling in Western society today are ‘Christian values.’ By that I mean that they are, in their esssence, rooted in Christianity. Secondly: for many people morality and religion are intertwined. Libby believes that they are not, but others believe that they are. Libby looks at certain moral values, and tries to determine whether values are accepted by secularists and Christians alike; if they are, no problem, if they are not, they are labeled ‘religious values’ and thus irrelevant to political discourse. This might make sense to Libby, but many religious persons would strongly disagree with it.

Thirdly, despite Libby’s characterization of those who oppose abortion, my experience is that abortion is a moral issue for most pro-life’ers. Libby believes that pro-life’ers do not really care about the unborn child. Again, in my experience she is completely wrong about that. She then goes on to contradict herself by explaining that, according to these people’s beliefs abortion is murder, and therefore wrong and should, therefore, be illegal. To these people it is about morality, it is about right and wrong.

She goes on to write the following:

But perhaps I belabor the point. The short answer to Michael’s question is every choice we make as human beings is a moral choice and all our laws are to some extent based on moral correctness and are necessary because individual moral values differ and some people do lie, cheat and steal. The government should regulate behavior that harms others. It shouldn’t regulate behaviors that don’t, no matter how offensive they may be to another’s moral values. That is the very definition of freedom.

I completely agree, and I bet most people, yes, most conservatives as well, would agree with that. However, in the case of abortion, Libby believes that no other person is harmed because she does not consider the fetus to be a human being. But if you do believe that the fetus is a human being, what then? Doesn’t that drastically alter the situation? In that case one does hurt another human being, in this case even an innocent child who has no say whatsoever in whether he (or she) should live or die.

In other words, Libby believes that it is very easy to separate morality from religion, but I do not agree with that. It is not that easy at all, especially not in the case of something as complicated as abortion.

Libby uses the same methology to decide whether something is acceptable or not as John Stuart Mill did. However, one question to Libby: does she think that Mill would have supported abortion?

I highly doubt it.

And as far as taxes go, providing for the common good is a moral responsibility that the government should shoulder and that includes helping those less fortunate. Liberals support the social safety net and are willing to pay for it. If we’re going to be assigning hypocrisy, it belongs to those social conservatives who fight tooth and nail for the “right to life” and then begrudge sharing a bit more of their own wealth to improve the quality of life for those who are then born into households of lesser priviledge.

What we see happening here (as in her entire post), Libby says that she disagrees with my thesis when she, in fact, agrees. My thesis was exactly what she wrote, that, in essence, all, or at least most, decisions are moral choices. American liberalis too, I argued, adhere to certain moral values, but pretend they do not. Therefore, I wrote:

It seems to me that liberals who say that the state does not have anything to do with morality, are a bunch of hypocrites: they do talk about morality when they talk about taxes, helping the poor, etc. Then, suddenly, it is about ‘helping’ the other and not being overly selfish. That is, of course, a moral value. In other words, liberals too pick and choose moral values they believe the goverment should defend, and criticize those who want the government to defend moral values they’re not happy with.

So, the question is, I guess, what kind of morals do liberals believe in and what kind of morals should the government defend?

And this is exactly what Libby did in her post. She labeled helping the poor a “moral responsibility” of the government and then attacked conservatives for not being willing to support the social safety net necessary to do so.

Lastly, I would like to respond to this post by Ron. Ron first explains why it is very difficult to come up with a clear definition of ‘liberalism’ in America, he then writes:

Liberalism stems from liberty, and above all else liberalism stands for individual liberty. Therefore liberals are united in opposing the violations of civil liberties seen under the Republicans who believe that the Bill of Rights is limited to the Second Amendment and see the American Civil Liberties Union as their enemy. Liberals defend both the basic liberties defended by the founding fathers, and seek to restore the checks and balances on government power were eroded under Republican one party rule.

This sounds like European liberalism, not American liberalism. Last time I checked, American liberals strongly opposed the views of Barry Goldwater, who actually wanted to do what Ron describes: limited government, more power to the states, constitutionalism.

More:

Liberals support a free market economy, but this leaves room for a variety of interpretations ranging from classical liberals supporting laissez-fair capitalism to those supporting increased government action. Liberals oppose both socialism and the system of government/corporate collusion promoted by conservatives, and I see neither as capitalist system. If not for the many other negative connotations of the word, fascism would be a far more accurate description of the economic policies being promoted by many Republicans, but using this label would denote an extremism which even the Bush administration has not reached.

Wait. Liberals support a free market economy, but oppose conservatives who support a free market economy?

Isn’t this what traditional American conservatism is all about? When I read Ron’s post, I feel like I am reading Goldwater, Burke or Hayek, not Al Gore et al. That post could have been written by me, replacing the word liberalism with conservatism. It seems to me that Ron forgets that the word ‘liberalism’ has radically (d)evolved in America.

In reality there is considerable pragmatism as opposed to ideology on economic issues among liberals. Liberals do not necessarily desire higher taxes as conservatives would argue, but neither would liberals accept a Grover Norquist pledge against raising taxes regardless of the situation. While Cohen considers a support for proactive government to be a fundamental belief of liberals, this is more a matter of pragmatism. Liberals will utilize government where necessary, while also maintaining a healthy skepticism about government. Liberals neither must advocate bigger government in all cases as conservative propagandists would claim, or oppose government in virtually all situations as many conservatives do. Liberals can support the necessary social safety net for those who need it without supporting a net so big that it strangles us all.

Again, most conservatives (and European liberals) would agree with that. The question is, when is it necessary and what role does the Constitution play in this? Also: what does Ron exactly mean with ‘the government’? Is he talking about local government, state government or the federal government? How is one weighed to another? If both the state and the federal government can solve an issue, which one should do it? The state? The federal government? Again, how about the Constitution?

Oppose socialism? What about moderate socialism? It seems to me that most Democrats would be member of the Labor parties in Europe. They almost always favor a bigger government (as in more programs to ‘help’ the poor, ‘improve’ education, ‘distribute’ wealth, etc.).

An interesting article at the New York Times (h/t Holly) about American Liberalism. Patricia Cohen writes:

The struggle among conservatives to define their movement in the post-Bush era may be getting more attention these days, but liberal intellectuals and writers are doing some soul-searching of their own. Not only are they trying to figure out what “the L word” now means, but also whether it could become a guiding philosophy in the 2008 presidential campaign by embracing the very ideas that are often seen as its greatest weaknesses: family values and a proactive government.

In several recent and forthcoming books (not to mention in bars and countless blog posts) liberals have been arguing over their past and their future. Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason,” with its merciless dissection of the Bush presidency, is getting the most attention. Unlike Mr. Gore, however, most of the other liberal authors are focused less on criticizing those in power than in defending and revitalizing their own philosophy.

There is a “new opening for a more robust liberalism,” said Michael Tomasky, editor at large of the liberal magazine The American Prospect. “It’s a very fascinating debate, because it’s also playing out to some extent in the world. Each of the three main Democratic candidates represents a specific and distinct place on the ideological continuum, from center to left, with Hillary Clinton towards the center, John Edwards towards the left, and Barack Obama occupying a still distinct place in between.”
[…]
And so many of the authors offer an analysis of why liberalism, which once defined America’s political life, lost support, and they identify a list of larger theoretical and policy issues that split the liberal camp, including national security, globalization and immigration, and tension between communal interests and individual rights, as well as liberalism’s recent arms-length relationship with religion and traditional values.

If there is a common thread linking the various books, though, it is an adjustment to President Bill Clinton’s famous campaign mantra: “It’s more than the economy, stupid.” Many aren’t satisfied with talking just about paychecks and changing the subject when values are raised, as some liberal and centrist Democrats have suggested. Indeed, they want to adopt the tactics of the Republican strategist Karl Rove and challenge their opponents’ greatest strengths on their own ground.

Again, it is a fascinating article, I encourage all of you to read it.

I find these kind of debates to be the most interesting aspect of politics. Often, blogging becomes summarizing what has happened in the world, and analyzing it in a way thousands of other people can do as well. However, in a debate like this, each voice represents something new, something distinct. Suddenly, one can truly add ideas, one can truly influence the way other people think. That is what it is all about, at least for me. This is essentially why I blog: I hope to learn and be influenced, but I also hope to influence others.

American liberalism and moral values: strange to talk about this. To many, American liberalism means quite the opposite of talking about moral values. Most liberals do not want to talk about the moral values dominating in a specific society, because they consider them to be a private affair, and not the business of the state.

Amy Sullivan believes that the Democratic Party should talk about morality and religion. She writes in “Liberalism for a New Century,” a collection of essays coming out next week, that quite some Republican voters “are not choosing one moral view over another. They are choosing the political party that talks about morality and religion over the party that doesn’t.”

E.J. Dionne (columnist for the Washington Post) writes in the same collection of essays: “American liberalism is, at its core, a set of moral commitments rooted in practical reason.”

Paul Starr, a Pulitzer Prize winner and Princeton sociologist, argues in “Freedom’s Power: The True Force of Liberalism,” that liberals “cannot allow themselves to become merely defensive and oppositional.”

They need, he writes, to “make the case for liberalism’s first principles, to renew the work of liberal innovation and to convince their fellow citizens to make the American project a liberal project once again.”

Patricia Cohen explains that liberals should not be afraid to proclaim that the government can be a force for good. Many Americans are, according to Paul Krugman (New York Times columnist), in favor of universal health care, believe that the government should help “the poorest members of society,” and that the government should protect the environment. These views are, Krugman explains, liberal views.

The debate about what constitutes American liberalism is also fought out in the area of foreign policy.

To noninterventionists the Iraq war provides sorrowful evidence of the dangers of exercising American power around the globe. The liberal internationalism that guided America through the cold war, however, linked security at home with the promotion of democracy abroad, and relied on international institutions and nonmilitary programs to win hearts and minds.

In his essay Mr. Tomasky (who is also editor of Guardian America, the London newspaper’s Web edition in the United States) offers a six-point program in which liberal hawks admit that the Iraq war was a mistake, and liberal doves acknowledge that their dislike of the Bush administration colored their judgment of the war and affirm that “we are not realists,” in the sense that tough-minded realpolitik should not necessarily override moral and humanitarian concerns.

There is also a debate going on in liberal circles about globalization: should globalization be countered, or is globalization inevitable and, in the end, a positive development?

It seems to me that liberals who say that the state does not have anything to do with morality, are a bunch of hypocrites: they do talk about morality when they talk about taxes, helping the poor, etc. Then, suddenly, it is about ‘helping’ the other and not being overly selfish. That is, of course, a moral value. In other words, liberals too pick and choose moral values they believe the goverment should defend, and criticize those who want the government to defend moral values they’re not happy with.

So, the question is, I guess, what kind of morals do liberals believe in and what kind of morals should the government defend?

UPDATE
Pamela answers my question(s) at The Democratic Daily. Go and read her post: she is, in her own words, a proud, JFK liberal.

UPDATE II
Same goes for Libby Spencer. Go and read this post by one of the liberal blogosphere’s finest bloggers (although I actually consider her to be more towards the Center than a pure Liberal… perhaps that’s why I think so highly of her. Just kidding of course).

UPDATE III
Finally, I also encourage you all to read this post by Ron Chusid: a great essay.

P.S.
I will come back at this issue tomorrow. All three, Pamela, Libby, and Ron, raise great points. I will address those issues tomorrow (as I said, this is my favorite part of politics).

Okay, I’ve had it: Bush the Neoliberal by Richard Cohen.

Years ago, someone coined the term “neoliberal.” I was never sure what it meant, and it has since fallen into disuse, but whatever the case, I’d like to revive (and mangle) the term and apply it — brace yourself — to George W. Bush. He’s more liberal than you might think…

But consider this: An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Nowhere is this truer than in education. For instance, there was a time when no group of Republicans could convene without passing a resolution calling for the abolition of the Education Department and turning the building — I am extrapolating here — into a museum of creationism.

Now, though, not only are such calls no longer heard, but Bush has extended the department’s reach in a manner that Democrats could not have envisaged. I am referring, of course, to the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind. I will spare you the act’s details, but it pretty much tells the states to shape up or face a loss of federal funds. It is precisely the sort of law that conservatives predicted Washington would someday seek — and it did.

Similarly, let’s take a look at the much-mocked notion of diversity. Bill Clinton was widely berated for his effort to have an administration that looked like America — women, African Americans, Hispanics, you name it. Whether by design or not, Bush has also managed that feat. A female education secretary is one thing, but a national security adviser — the uber-macho post — is something else, and that went first to Condi Rice. And over at Justice, Bush chose Alberto Gonzales, the son of Hispanic migrant workers and, incidentally, a lawyer with the singular gift of forgetting meetings he attended. (In private practice, did he forget to bill?)

I am not suggesting that any of these appointees — including Bush’s former White House counsel, Harriet Miers — are what is pejoratively known as affirmative action hires. I am suggesting, though, that Bush has not only diversified his Cabinet and staff but obviously got enormous satisfaction in doing so. You only have to listen to Bush talk about the virtues of immigration — another liberal sentiment — or his frequent mention of the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to appreciate that the president is a sentimental softie, what was once dismissively called a “mushy-headed liberal.”

For those wondering what neoliberalism exactly is, I suggest reading this. The Wikipedia entry in Dutch, rightfully identifies Thatcher and Reagan, among others, as neoliberals.

One could also, however, call Bush a neoconservative. I wrote an essay about this very subject: is George W. Bush America’s first neoconservative president or not? In the essay I argue that he is. He shows all the signs, so to speak. He invested in education, he came up with the Bush doctrine, he talks about moral values a lot, he fully supports Israel: yes, he’s a neocon.

To put an end to the confusion, I suggest calling George W. Bush a neolibercon.

Alan posted a comment in one of today’s threads about me calling myself a conservative liberal. He wrote: “which strikes me as similar to saying ‘I’m tall short’, a juxtaposition of opposites.”

I encourage him, and all of you, to read this entry at Wikipedia.

David Schraub wrote a fascinating post about US Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, racism and Black Conservatism.

Many people, left and right, think that Thomas believes racism is over in America. Conservatives believe it because they believe it and think of Thomas as one of them. Liberals believe it because they can’t otherwise fathom why Thomas seems so uninterested in the fight for equality.

But they’ve got it precisely backwards. Thomas doesn’t believe racism is gone in America. Thomas believes racism is irrevocably ingrained in America. In this respect, he draws from a deep Black Conservative tradition that sees little hope in the full-frontal assault for civil rights. Rather, they think the only way equality will be achieved in America is by absorbing everything racism has to throw at you, and still excelling. What this means differs for different theorists (the Black Conservative tradition contains men as widely varied as Booker T. Washington and Marcus Garvey), but the strain of thought tends to accept racism as a fact and demand Black people succeed anyway.

So, at the very core of Thomas’ ‘ideology’ lies that notion that racism will never be eradicated. David uses that to make his main point:

[C]onservatives, especially, need to understand this foundation of Thomas’ politics and jurisprudence. This split Thomas has with White conservative is very deep–one camp believes racism is permanent, the other thinks that it has been eliminated. That’s a major gap. Basically, I think it is qualitatively different for a Black person versus a White person to say “racism is permanent.” The reason the former says it is because the latter isn’t willing to do anything about it. As a White person (liberal or conservative) hearing the Black Conservative critique, my only ethical response is to try and prove him wrong. I may fail at it–but virtually any framework that believes racism is bad cannot then allow White people to concede to it without a fight. Because White conservatives don’t grapple with Thomas’ basic observation of racial dynamics, they avoid this tension–but only at the cost of not taking one of their own champions seriously.

I am more realistic, perhaps, than David is. Racism will never completely disappear, simply because prejudices will never disappear and because people will never be completely, or even overwhelmingly or even mostly, virtuous. On the other hand, Justice Thomas’ approach is a bit too passive for my taste. I do think that racism can be fought against, that its influence can be decreased. Not completely, no, but to quite an extent, yes.

It seems that Newt Gingrich once again succeeded in pissing American ‘liberals’ off, this time by saying that “liberalism” is responsible for the VA Tech massacre.

He said (h/t Think Progress):

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the broader context? After Columbine, you gave a speech where you blamed 35 — blamed the shootings on 35 years of liberalism. You went — you said, “I want to say to the elite of this country, the elite news media, the liberal academic elite, the liberal political elite — I accuse you in Littleton of being afraid to talk about the mess you’ve made and being afraid to take responsibility for the things you have done, and instead foisting on the rest of us pathetic banalities because you don’t have the courage to look at the world you have created.” Do you stand by that prescription today?

GINGRICH: Yes, I think the fact is, if you look at the amount of violence we have in games that young people play at 7, 8, 10, 12, 15 years of age, if you look at the dehumanization, if you look at the fact that we refuse to say that we are, in fact, endowed by our creator, that our rights come from God, that if you kill somebody, you’re committing an act of evil.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what does that have to do with liberalism?

GINGRICH: Well, who has created a situation ethics, essentially, zone of not being willing to talk about any of these things. Let me carry another example. I strongly supported Imus being dismissed, but I also think the very thing he was dismissed for, which is the use of language which is stunningly degrading of women — the fact, for example, that one of the Halloween costumes this last year was being able to be either a prostitute or a pimp at 10, 11, 12 years of age, buying a costume, and we don’t have any discussion about what’s happened to our culture because while we’re restricting political free speech under McCain-Feingold, we say it’s impossible to restrict vulgar and vicious and anti-human speech. And I would argue that that’s a major component of what’s happened to our culture in the last 40 years.

Heh. Nice. Quite some people are angry:
- Joe Gandelman for instance, but also;
- Michael J Stickings, and
- the Gun Toting Liberal…

Let me start by saying that what Gingrich said, in this context was, one, stupid, and two, inaccurate. ‘Liberalism’ is not responsible for what Cho did. Cho is responsible for the massacre and no one else.

However, I do think that Dan Riehl has a point when he writes: “While I am strongly opposed to linking one institution, or one professor to the cause for any one lunatics act, that should not mean we can’t engage in a serious discussion around the degradation of our culture and what role it may have to play in the kinds of violence and social mayhem which we are seeing more and more in society today.”

The West is troubled by a loss of morals and personal responsibility is virtually non-existent anymore. Those issues should be addressed. Not in the context of the massacre at VA Tech, but addressed nonetheless.

Commenter David in the E.J. Dionne and the Second Amendment thread:

I think that judicial activism is a very real phenomenon and not just some label.

The problem with judicial activism is that it completely undermines the rule of law. If a law just means what judges arbitrarily decide that it means then we are in big problems.

The US has led the way with judicial activism, but other parts of the world have followed suit. Unfortunately this has diminished the role of the law as a force which limits the power of the state.

In the European Union, for example, the European Court of Justice has frequently used its powers to extend the powers of the European institutions against member states. The ECJ is one of the major centralising forces in Europe.

Similarly the courts of many common law countries, such as Canada, the UK and Ireland have become much more activist in recent years.

Courts have become the modern equivalent of the arbitrary prerogative power of the monarch in medieval society.

The New York Times has an interesting article up, written by Kirk Johnson:

Both sides of the abortion debate expect a new push for restrictions as state lawmakers around the country digest the implications of the Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding a federal ban on a type of abortion…

The reasoning of both the court’s majority opinion upholding the restrictions and the dissent gave encouragement to opponents of abortion. The ruling, they said, will bolster their argument that the issues raised by abortion — among them defining fully informed consent by women who want to end pregnancies and the question of when a fetus feels pain — are legitimate topics for state legislation.

“The case does not give us a new issue, it reinforces the issue and gives us an opportunity to use it,” said Mary S. Balch, the director of for state legislation at the National Right to Life Committee.

Ms. Balch and other legislative experts said that North Dakota, Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas and Alabama, where legislators are still meeting and anti-abortion legislation is on the table, were probably the places to watch for now.

Only hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, a lawmaker in Alabama introduced a measure that would ban almost all abortions in the state. Most states have adjourned their legislatures for the year or passed the deadline for introducing new bills.

An interesting question is what role the decision will play in the 08 elections, and in the coming months and years. The pro-life movement has achieved an important victory: will pro-choice activists and voters counter aggressively? Most likely, yes. Before we know, the people / candidates talking about abortion aren’t just those who want to appeal to the social conservative base anymore. From now on, winning the abortion debate / keeping it as much available / legal as possible, is a top priority of liberal activists and voters (again).

and what the Democrats should try to be aware of…

“Although efforts have been made to portray the Vietcong’s Tet offensive in the spring of 1968 as a military defeat for the Vietnamese communists, it was in strategic reality a decisive blow to American policy in Southeast Asia, and for a simple reason. However many casualties the Viet Cong sustained, after Tet large numbers of Americans turned against the war. It was in acknowledgement of that reality that Lyndon Johnson abdicated the presidency a few weeks later. From that point on, polls showed a growing majtoriy of Americans ‘against the war.’ This negative majority, however, concealed a vital asymmetry. Some Americans, a small minority, had come to believe that the war, perhaps any war, ceteainly one against a Third World nation, was wrong in itself. A far larger group, swelling the size of the overall ‘against the war’ number in the polls, had merely decided pragmatically that this partiuclar war could not be won.

Consequently, to send American young men to kill and be killed in it was wasteful and foolish. These two schools, the moralist and the pragmatic, came together and made common cause tactically on the narrow issue of whether the war should be fought on to victory at any cost. But on every other issue, and in particular in their attitude to American motives for getting into the war and the justification for it, they were fundamentally in disagreement. What was more, many of those who believed pragmatically that the war could not be won deeply disliked and resented those who contended that it was morally wrong. A new majority was forming. Its patriotism was affronted by those who questioned American motives and morality. It yearned for new fields, where American idealism could be vindicated by vuctorious military action. And it seethed with anger against moralists, pacifists, and defeatists, all the more so because many of the new majority had - for pragmatic reasons - joined the informal coalition against the war, but bitterly resented the company the found themselves in.”

- Lee Edwards, The World Turned Right Side Up

Robert Kuttner wrote a nice anti-Republican / anti-conservative(s) column for The Boston Globe. The main idea: Republicans stand for corruption and overreach of presidential power and, of course, for the elite, for the rich and for the oppression of the poor. Republicans = inequality, Democrats = equality. Well, that’s not true: he also has a problem with the Demcrats, namely for not being liberal enough.

THREE TIMES in my political adulthood, we have seen the exhaustion of a conservative ideology and presidency. Under Presidents Nixon and Bush II, the ingredients were corruption, corporate excess, and overreach of presidential power. During the 12 years of Reagan and Bush I, the hallmark was the failure of conservative economics.

And twice, the electorate ousted Republicans only to get centrist Democrats, who ran more competent administrations but did little to redress the structure of financial inequality in America.

Now, the third era of conservative Republican rule is collapsing — with the most spectacular mélange of overreach, incompetence, economic distress, and sheer corruption of all. But who, and what, will succeed Bush? The forces of privilege and inequality are now so deeply entrenched in America that it will take a Democratic successor at least as bold as FDR or LBJ to change course.

When Nixon went down in 1974, Watergate was most remembered for its assaults on the Constitution, but it also involved corrupt favors for business allies, lubricated by satchels of $100 bills. Despite an abortive effort to rein in the influence of concentrated wealth in politics, the Supreme Court soon opened loopholes that allowed big money to dominate politics once again.

Well, that column is a piece of rubbish, isn’t it? Salvation will come from liberalssocial democrats, according to Kuttner. Increase taxes, help the poor and America will be transformed into a heaven on earth.

More at Forward Movement (Jules Crittenden) (with some interesting other links).

An interesting article about Burke and Hayek. The intro:

Edmund Burke, the passionate defender of the “ancient principles”1 of his forebears, might be surprised to discover that he originated a new school of political thought. By all accounts, however, he is the “modern founder of political conservatism,”2 and generations of ‘conservative’ thinkers have found his life and work a rich source of philosophical and practical wisdom. Burke, of course, was a statesman and not a political philosopher, and he never produced anything that may be regarded as a systematic political treatise. Nevertheless, he embraced a consistent political creed that governed his actions throughout his life. The thesis of this essay is that Burke’s implicit political creed is, in all essential respects, the doctrine articulated by the twentieth-century social philosopher F. A. Hayek. Hayek’s aim, he said, was to “restate” 3 or systematize those basic principles whose observance generated and sustain Western constitutional government and the free society. The “classical liberal” principles articulated by Hayek were also those that inspired and guided Burke.

Burke and Hayek, in short, represent the same political tradition. Not only do they subscribe to the same substantive political philosophy, but they hold similar views regarding the nature of society, the role of reason in human affairs, the proper tasks of government, and, to a certain extent, the nature of moral and legal rules. Although there are differences between their views as well, differences that stem from Burke’s orthodox Christianity on the one hand and Hayek’s religious agnosticism on the other, the area of substantive agreement between their respective views is far greater than that of their disagreement. The heart of the matter is that both Burke and Hayek remained, as Hayek put it, “unrepentant Old Whig[s]”4 to the end.

I have to admit that I ‘discovered’ Hayek only a relatively short while ago, but I recognize my own thoughts in his. Hayek was truly a “liberal” in the European sense of the word.

Anyway - an interesting article for all those interested in (the ideas of) Hayek and Burke.